RIKER author's own larger self-replication does not reproduce the original GLM-4.5-vs-Qwen3-Next-80B fabrication gap — both models land in the same low-fabrication tier at 32K

ragbenchmarknlp-evaluationhallucinationself-replicationsingle-source-capriker

The original RIKER paper (arXiv:2601.08847, Table 4, 32K context) reports GLM-4.5 at 0.0% fabrication and Qwen3-Next-80B at 40.9% — a 40.9-percentage-point gap between two models the paper otherwise rates with comparable single-document extraction accuracy (93.6% vs. 91.4%). RIKER's own author's March 2026 follow-up (arXiv:2603.08274), using an expanded version of the identical methodology across 35 models and 172 billion tokens, does not reproduce this gap for the same two models at the same 32K context: it instead reports GLM-4.5's fabrication rate at 1.19%–1.88% and Qwen3-Next-80B's at 7.04% — a gap of roughly 5–6 points, not 41. The follow-up explicitly groups Qwen3-Next-80B with GLM-4.5, GLM-4.6, MiniMax, and DeepSeek V3.1 as "well-calibrated" models whose fabrication rate "cannot be explained by grounding ability alone" — the opposite of the original paper's framing of Qwen3-Next-80B as a high-fabrication outlier.

The qualitative claim both papers share — that grounding accuracy and fabrication resistance are separable capabilities — is reaffirmed; the specific magnitude for this model pair is not. Both documents are authored by the same person at the same company (see no independent source has yet checked either figure), so this is a self-correction, not outside disconfirmation — but a self-correction that moves a headline number by roughly 34 percentage points is itself evidence that the original figure should not be quoted without the later paper's revision attached.